So it's okay if a company thinks they can improve their game controls (and reach new audiences on a new platform) but it's not okay if a company thinks they can improve their game presentation (and reach new audiences on a new platform)?

The presentation has always played a big part in all of their games... it seems that it is important to them. And why has Sony to justify themselves how they spend their resources anyway?

Yes. Take the trilogy, plus Golden Abyss, give em all the TLOU treatment, and release it for $60. I haven't really played any of the games, and what little I did play I didn't Much care for, but even I might be swayed with a deal like that.

I wouldn't buy it as I've already played the 3 games till the limit.

But if they'll continue this trend of making remasters, I believe it would be better to give these projects to smaller teams, like what Nintendo did with Ocarina of Time 3D.

omg are you kidding me? no game developer has to justify anything to anybody on how they spend their resources. thats obvious, why are you bringing up that utterly useless point? that is probably the most useless thing could say. people can spend their money however they want OBVIOUSLY. nobody is here saying that sony doesnt have the right to make an uncharted trilogy or that sony should be required to make new games. who is saying that nonsense? nobody.

i am pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between what nintendo did with the wii and what is going on with the ps4 right now (keep in mind, i didnt buy any of the new play control games. i did buy MPtrilogy however). i didnt care much for the new play control games, but you can see that nintendo saw value in the way you play with the games and interact with them. sony sees value in.. better lighting and better textures. REALLY? the last of us should have just been released in theatres then. that would have been the best graphics you possibly could have gotten. 

and obviously (cant believe i have to say this) sony can remake any game they want to have better graphics and to welcome all the new people to playstation (even though all you have to do, if you care, is get a ps3 or get psnow and you can see the back catalogue). im just saying that there is a difference in philosophy, and i think nintendo's is more healthy for the industry. sorry, that i have that OPINION.

Why can't they just forget about the Beyond remaster nobody wants and instead focus on an Uncharted remaster?

... ok, i dont think anybody's opinion would represent everyone.

what is it with you guys and saying things like this? we are on a forum for fucks sake, what else do we have besides our opinions?

+1.  What Sony executives want or desire and market realities are not often in accord with each other.  I bet Yoshida doesn't really even get to controls Sony's WWS decisions as to how many ports there will or wont be.  Let alone the landscape for 3rd party publishers. It's not like they'll say no we don't want those remastered ports.  Tomb Raider was the first and I doubt the last.  

As i said a few quote trees ago, that's good for the ones who switched side. I think any ps3 owner who wanted to play uncharted games already did (especially as it was "offered" with psplus)

All these remasters are cool and all, but they don't make ps3 owners want a ps4

This thread reminds me of how silly things can get on forums. And over the smallest things... SONY's re-releasing 1 enhanced version of a PS3 game, and after a couple of small PSN titles 8 months into the gen and people label the console the "remastered box". Now when someone at SONY even mentions the possibility of another remaster, which will probably be at least 4 months off from release after it's announced, people flip their shit.

Ohhhhhhhhh... what a fun generation this is.... mostly remakes and cross-gen crap.

Handhelds and the Wii U should start selling better, this "X amount of PS4 owners didn't own a PS3" is a shitty excuse.